India: Delhi High Court states that Patent Working Information is not ‘Confidential’

Source : delhihighcourt.nic.in

Background

‘Commercial working statement’ is the information submitted about the working or non-working of granted Patents by a Patentee or a licensee to the Indian Patent Office by making a request on Form 27. This is required to be submitted with the Indian Patent Office within 3 months from the end of every year that is before March 31 of every year or when the Controller issues a notice regarding submission of such information. Recently, a writ petition was filed by Prof. Shamnad Basheer (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Petitioner’) wherein he pointed out that many Patentees and Licensees have not submitted the commercial working statement and no action has been taken against them as per Section 122 of the Indian Patents Act, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’).

Petitioner’s Submission

The Petitioner highlighted many instances where there was a failure to comply with the submission of a working statement by the Patentees or licensees. These are:

Ø  As reported in the Annual Report for the year 2012-2013 submitted by the Office of the Controller General of Patents, Designs, Trademarks and Geographical Indications, ‘there were totally 43920 patent issued during that period, but the commercial working statement on Form 27 was submitted only in 27946 cases and moreover, only in 6201 cases the statement was recorded as working’. It sought information from the Union of India (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Respondents’) regarding the actions that have been taken against the Patentees/Licensees for not submitted Form 27.

Ø  It further referred to the case of M/s NATCO Pharma to whom a Compulsory License was granted for the Patent No. 215758 and the order, which granted Compulsory License, imposed an obligation on M/s NATCO Pharma to report the accounts of sales to the Controller on a quarterly basis, on or before the 15th of each succeeding month. It sought information as to whether M/s NATCO Pharma has complied with the order and if not what action has been taken against them.

Ø  The Court’s attention was further drawn to another statutory noncompliance where the the Petitioner pointed out that Section 146(2) read with Rule 131 also makes it mandatory for a licensee to submit the working statement to which the Controller of Patents and Designs, CPIO responded that “Form-27 are filed by Patentee only”.

Ø  The Petitioner also pointed out to an instance where Form 27 was submitted by M/s Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (Pub.) in respect of patent no.203034 where the Patentee mentioned that details of licenses and sub-licenses would be only disclosed on the direction of the Patent Office.

Intervener’s Submission

Ms. Pritha Srikumar, Advocate for the intervener, has submitted that the Petitioner has pointed that Form 27 was vague, a relook into the same by the Respondents is necessary, and hence, non-compliance of submitting Form 27 cannot be faulted with.

Court’s Observation

Ø  The Court held that the response of “Form-27 are filed by Patentee only“ by Controller of Patents and Designs, CPIO is contrary to statutory requirement as per Section 146 of the Act.

Ø  With regard to the Form 27, submitted by M/s Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (Pub.), the Court stated that the Patentees/Licensee are required to furnish details of the licenses and sub-licenses. Further, it held that these information cannot be termed “confidential” and therefore, the Patent Office has to take action against Patentees/Licensees who do not furnish the required information for submitting Form 27.

Ø  The Court held the submission of Ms. Pritha Srikumar to be erroneous and stated that there can be no exemption from statutory provision and the Patentee/licensee who submits the same with the Patent Office should clarify any problem relating to Form 27. About having a relook into submission of Form 27, the Court observed that the Respondents have submitted in their counter affidavit that public comments were invited for the amendment to Form 27.

Ø  The Court further stated that the writ petition by the Petitioner has remained pending with the Court since 2015. Also, they do not have any information as to whether there is any change in the status with regard to the submission of working statement under Section 146 of the Patents Act, 1970 and whether any action is taken by the Controller General of Patents and Designs under Section 122 of the Act against Patentees/Licensees who are not complying with the submission of commercial working statement.

Further, Mr. Amit Mahajan, the Learned Central Government Standing Counsel (hereinafter referred to as the ‘CGSC’), prayed for an adjournment with regard to information about the status of any amendment to the rules and action taken under Section 122 of the Indian Patents Act for non-compliance in submission of working statement. Therefore, the Court granted time to CGSC and the matter will be next heard on January 18.

Conclusion

Submission of working statement by making a request on Form 27 is mandatory and is required to be submitted by Patentees/Licensees without hiding any information as confidential. Any failure to comply with the submission of Form 27 would lead to imprisonment or a fine or both as per Section 122 of the Indian Patents Act.

Hosting a Webpage on Facebook Would Not Confer Jurisdiction – Delhi High Court

Source: delhihighcourt.nic.in

The Delhi High Court in News Nation Networks Pvt. Ltd. v. News Nation Gujarat & Ors.[1] vide an order dated December 22, 2017 on the question of jurisdiction held that “…merely hosting a web-page on Facebook would not be sufficient to confer jurisdiction on a court where the defendants does not carry on business. Merely because Facebook is an interactive site and permits the users to offer comments or indicate whether they “like what they see” on the site, would not be sufficient to provide a cause of action for passing off in a jurisdiction where the Defendant does not enter into any commercial transaction,”

Facts:

The Applicant, News Nation Networks Pvt. Ltd., is a media house engaged in the business of broadcasting, telecasting, relaying, transmitting and distribution of news. The Plaintiff owns and operates a Hindi news channel under the trademark and trade name “NEWS NATION, which is broadcasted all over India, including the State of Gujarat- by way of cable streaming, Direct To Home (DTH) service and also by online streaming. The Plaintiff stated that the mark NEWS NATION is a combination of two words and was coined by the Plaintiff in the year 2012 and being used by it since April, 2013. The Plaintiff has applied for registration of the mark NEWS NATION; however, the same is pending before the Registrar of Trademarks, Delhi. The Plaintiff further stated that the plaintiff has a formidable presence on the internet and operates a website with domain name “www.newsnation.com”, along with significant presence on social networking sites such as Facebook and Twitter. It is also stated by the Plaintiff that the Defendants have established a media house and have started publishing a newspaper under the name of “News Nation Gujarat” and also run a website with the domain name “ww.newsnationgujarat.com” along with an interactive Facebook page titled as “News Nation Gujarat”. The Plaintiff further stated that although the newspaper was circulated in Gujarat but it was being circulated through the World Wide Web and the same is accessible to users in Delhi as well and thus causing grave confusion and deception among the public at large and therefore, amounts to passing off, unfair competition and unfair trade practice.

Assertions:

The Plaintiff contended that Delhi High Court had jurisdiction to decide on the matter on the following assertions:

1. That the Defendants are circulating news under the impugned “NEWS NATION GUJARAT” mark through its website and online webpages which are accessible and being viewed in Delhi and within the Jurisdiction of the Hon’ble Court of Delhi. The alleged mark of the Defendants “NEWS NATION GUJARAT” is causing confusion amongst people and members of industry based in Delhi.
2. The Plaintiff received e-mails written by a third party M/s Prime Time Communications based in Delhi, that uses the Plaintiff’s channels for advertising its products/services, inquiring about the newspaper NEWS NATION GUJARAT and expressing their intention to advertise the same. The said e-mail was received by Plaintiff at its registered office in Delhi.
3. The Plaintiff has been receiving several telephone calls from members of the trade several of whom are also based within the territorial jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court inquiring about News Nation Gujarat and expressing their intention to advertise the same.
4. During the course of proceedings, it was conceded on behalf of the plaintiff that the defendants do not circulate their paper online through their website but on social media platforms. It was contended that the defendants’ newspaper was available on its “Facebook” and the defendants were circulating news through www.facebook.com, which the plaintiff claims is an interactive site.
5. That the jurisdiction of this Court is invoked only on the basis of two assertions. First, that the newspaper is published on a page on www.facebook.com – which is an interactive site inasmuch as, users, can place their comments on the Facebook page as well. Second, that the plaintiff has received queries from one M/s Prime Time Communications expressing its intention to advertise in the newspaper published by the defendants.

Observation of the Court:

The court observed that the mark News Nation is not a registered trade mark (although an application for registration of the said trademark is pending). Thus, the present suit is a suit for passing off and the question whether this court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit has to be considered in the context of Section 20 of CPC.

The court observed that maintenance of the Facebook page on a social media site can at best be representative of the defendants issuing an advertisement of their product i.e. newspaper. Although, it is stated that www.facebook.com is an interactive site, there is no allegation that any commercial transaction is carried out between users and the defendants through www.facebook.com. The allegation is merely that the users of www.facebook.com can read an article or news published and can post their comments.

The court relying on ratio in precedents in Pfizer Products Inc. v. Rajesh Chopra and Ors.[2], Cyber sell Inc, an Arizona Corporation v. Cyber sell Inc. a Florida Corporation[3], Banyan Tree Holding (P) Ltd. v. A Murali Krishna Reddy and Anr.[4] held for the first assertion of the Plaintiff that “merely because Facebook is an interactive site and permits the users to offer comments or indicate whether they “like what they see” on the site, would not be sufficient to provide a cause of action for passing off in a jurisdiction where the defendant does not enter into any commercial transaction.”

In relation to the assertion of the Plaintiff whether the fact that Plaintiff received queries for advertisement is sufficient for the Plaintiff to file a suit in the Delhi High Court, the court held that for passing off action, it would be necessary for the plaintiff to plead and establish that there was a commercial transaction within the jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court. In the present complaint, there was no allegation that any commercial transaction had been consummated within the jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court. The mere fact that the Plaintiff had received queries for advertisement would wholly be insufficient to attract the jurisdiction of the court.

Based on above-stated reasoning, the court was satisfied that the Delhi High Court did not have jurisdiction to entertain the present suit and the plaint must be returned.

---

[1] C.S. (COMM) 334/2016

[2] 127 (2006) DLT 783.

[3] 130 F.3d 414 (1997).

[4] 2010 (42) PTC 361.

India: Re-Registration of IPRS as Copyright Society

Source: www.iprs.org

Indian Performing Rights Society (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPRS’), a representative body of owners of music, viz. the composers, lyricists (or authors) and the publishers of music, on November 28, at last got re-registered as a copyright society, under the Copyright Act, 1957. Copyright Society is a legal society that shields and manages the interest of authors of copyrightable work.

In 1996, after the amendment to the Copyright Act in 1994, the IPRS got registered under Section 33 of the Copyright Act, as a Copyright Society to do the business of issuing licenses for usage of musical works and accompanying literary works. But, this decision was criticized as there were certain errors in the Articles of Association (AoA) of IPRS. These errors were:

• Section 33 states that ‘……..Provided that an owner of copyright shall, in his individual capacity, continue to have the right to grant licences in respect of his own works consistent with his obligations as a member of the registered copyright society’. But, the AoA of IPRS mentioned ‘all members are required to assign their performing rights to the Society, after they were granted membership’. This ‘assignment’ was against the law.
• It allowed individuals who were not owners of copyright to vote. This resulted in various litigations wherein companies like Saregama, Sony, Universal, Venus, etc., got back to back injunctions restraining IPRS from conducting its Annual General Meetings (AGMs).

Several other issues led to a major amendment to Copyright Act in the year 2012. This mandated that all copyright societies be re-registered with the Registrar of Copyrights. After this, IPRS did apply for re-registration, but later withdrew the application as it wished to discontinue as a registered copyright society. As a result this, it got de-registered in June, 2013.

India: Facebook removed nearly 3 Million posts following Intellectual Property related complaints

Taking a very strong step towards the fight against counterfeits, Facebook axed nearly 3 million posts from its services during the first half of 2017, following complaints of copyright and trademark infringement this year.

The step was taken on December 18, 2017, after the ninth ‘Transparency Report’[1] of the Company was released. The posts included individual posts, photos, videos or advertisements to profiles on Facebook, and photos, videos, advertisements or accounts on Instagram. Chris Sonderby, a Deputy General Counsel at the company, said in a blog post ‘this is the first time Facebook has provided data on reports from rights holders. The worldwide data on intellectual property-related takedowns is a new disclosure for Facebook as part of its biannual “Transparency Report”. We believe that sharing information about (intellectual property) reports we receive from rights holders is an important step toward being more open and clear about how we protect the people and businesses that use our services.[2]’

The data in the report show there were about 377,400 complaints from January through June, out of which 60% was related to alleged copyright violations. The company removed user uploads in response to 81 percent of filings for counterfeiting, 68 percent for copyrights and 47 percent for trademarks, according to its report. The percentages were roughly similar for Instagram.

Facebook provides surveillance tools that alert the intellectual property proprietors about the alleged copies of their protected works on Facebook server and misuse of their brand. A takedown request for unauthorized uses could be sent by the proprietors to a team of Facebook content analysts.

---

[1] https://govtrequests.facebook.com/

[2] https://www.cnbc.com/2017/12/18/reuters-america-facebook-reveals-data-on-copyright-and-trademark-complaints.html

India: Banaganapalle Mangoes Gets a Geographical Indication (GI) Tag

Source: www.ipindia.nic.in

Andhra Pradesh tasted the sweetness of its Banaganapalle mangoes as it finally got the Geographical Indication (GI) tag this year in the May after a long wait of 100 years.

The tag was given by the Geographical Indications Registry, Chennai after an application from the Horticulture Commissioner, Andhra Pradesh was filed. The ‘King of fruits’ i.e. Banaganapalle mangoes is now officially owned by the State Government of Andhra Pradesh. The logo decided by the Government features a bright yellow fruit around which the tagline says “Banganappalle Mangoes of Andhra Pradesh,” with images of a man and a woman appearing to be farmers. Anyone from now on to sell or produce these must first apply to become authorized users and would require a no-objection certificate (NOC) from Andhra Pradesh Government's horticulture Department.

The fruit is also known by a variety of monikers like Beneshan, Baneshan, Benishan, Chappatai, Safeda, Banaganapalli, Banginapalli, Banaganapalle, etc. The highlight of the fruit is that it can preserve its quality under cold storage up till three months. The documents submitted to the Registry stated ‘The prominent characteristic of Banganapalle mangoes is that their skin has very light spots, stone is oblong in shape and has very thin seed with sparse and soft fiber all over’.

The Government also stated the primary center of origin to be Kurnool district comprising Banaganapalle, Paanyam and Nandyal mandals and Khammam, Mahabubnagar, Rangareddy, Medak, Adilabad districts in Telangana as secondary centers of origin. According to an affidavit furnished in 2011, Rani Kumudini, the then Andhra Pradesh Commissioner of Horticulture, stated that nearly 7,68,250 families were involved in the production of Banaganapalle mangoes. An estimated 24.35 lakh metric tonnes of mangoes were grown every year in Andhra Pradesh and about   5,500 tonnes of Banganappalle mangoes were being exported annually to countries like the U.S., U.K., Japan and the Gulf nations. 

India: Gobindobhog Rice gets a Geographical Indication (GI) tag

Source: www.ipindia.nic.in

Other than Rosogolla, the Government of West Bengal, earlier last year in September earned itself another Geographical Indication (GI) Tag in Gobindobhog Rice. The rice is a native, aromatic, non-basmati premium variety rice from West Bengal. The cultivation of it is as old as 300 years in the area. It is short white grains, sticky rice having a sweet buttery flavor and pleasant aroma. It derives its name from principal ingredient used in preparation of offerings to Govindajiu, the family deity of Setts of Kolkata.

The application for the GI tag was filed by the State Government of West Bengal in August, 2015. The Gobindobhog Rice is the specialty of Burdwan district of West Bengal. Because of this variety of rice, the region is also known as the rice bowl of West Bengal. The rice is predominantly cultivated in the east Burdwan district - in the southern basin of the Damodar River in the Raina 1, Raina 2 and Khandaghosh blocks. It was cultivated in an area of 35 hectares last year. Of this, 20 hectares were spread over of Raina 1 and Raina 2 blocks. The special features of this variety of rice is that it is cultivated late, after the rainy season, and therefore it is affected very little by it and is less prone to pests. The price and productivity of the rice is high compared to other varieties of rice. 

The state government is celebrating the GI tag as they are now assured that different variety of rice from the same region cannot be branded as ‘Gobindobhog Rice’. Also, the marketability of the Gobindobhog Rice in the domestic and international market would be strengthened, resulting in better profits for the state and more importantly for the stakeholders in general. 

China: Government’s Tougher Take on IPR Infringement

China is touted as one of the most innovative countries in the world, and is also ranked 22^nd in the Global Innovation Index, 2017. Therefore, innovations would require Intellectual Property (IP) protection. Thus, in the pursuit of making more stringent IP laws the State Council, China's cabinet on November 22, 2017, said that ‘penalties for IPR infringement will be increased to lower the cost of safeguarding such rights. Quick and low-cost ways of safeguarding IPR must be expanded.[1]’

The Chinese Government plans to impose high punitive fines for infringing actions and at the same time will figure out cost effective ways of IP protection.  In the statement released by the Government it stated that ‘With strong and effective property rights protection, China will raise the confidence of market participants to invest and start businesses. The government will provide better protection of property rights and help recover the losses of property owners with better legal assistance.’ They also plan develop stronger enforcement of IP rights by internet tracing of sources, real-time monitoring and online identification of infringements.

The Government had plan to take this step as a reply to the infringers, especially the ones who are wrongdoers in the online shopping and foreign trade. It also plans through this move to increase the confidence of the market participants to invest and start businesses.

---

[1] http://english.gov.cn/policies/policy_watch/2017/11/23/content_281475952133828.htm

United States: Jury sides with San Diego in Comic Con trademark battle

Source: www.comic-con.org

Finally, the seething and slithering epic IP battle in the United States related to the ownership of the trademark ‘Comic-Con’ has come to an end with San Diego Comic Con emerging victorious. With the New Delhi Comic Con scheduled to take place later this week from December 13 to December 15, in this article, we explore the possible ramifications on the trademark front.    

CASE BACKGROUND

• The Plaintiff in the present case San-Diego Comic Con (hereinafter referred to as ‘SDCC’) is a non-profit corporation dedicated to the appreciation of comics and other popular arts through events, including its ‘Comic-Con convention’ in San Diego, California.
• The Defendants in the present case, Dan Farr of Dan Farr Productions and Bryan Brandenberg, are entrepreneurs and producers of ‘Salt Lake Comic Con’, which is a comic and popular arts convention in Salt Lake City, Utah.
• It was brought to the notice of SDCC that the Defendants, Dan Farr and Bryan Brandenberg, drove around an Audi advertising its smaller Comic Con in the midst of San Diego’s convention. SDCC sent cease-and-desist letters to the Defendant to prevent them from using the name. However, the letter was ignored by the Defendants.
• Thus, a trademark infringement law suit was filed by the Plaintiff in 2014, against the Defendants alleging that the Defendants are using the term ‘Comic Con’ which is infringing the Plaintiff’s mark ‘Comic-Con’ and is causing confusion in the minds of the general public who as a result link both the conventions to each other.
• Permanent Injunction forbidding the Defendants from using the infringing mark in any logo, event, trademark or website and monetary damage of $12 million dollars were prayed by the Plaintiffs against the Defendants.

PARTY CONTENTIONS

• The Defendants refuted the allegation of public confusion. They contended that the Plaintiff has abandoned the trademark. It was also emphasized by them that the trademark is generic and descriptive as it was used in some form by many similar conventions around the country for almost 50 years. As evidence, they cited examples of use of the term “comic con” to describe events that took place prior to the first San Diego event in 1970, and an instance where the Plaintiff had withdrawn its application for a trademark on the term “Comic Con” (no hyphen) in early 2000s. Talking about the generic nature of the term the Defendants also stated that Plaintiff’s trademark applied only to “Comic-Con” (with a hyphen).
• Defending the claim of the trademark being generic, the Defendant stated that ‘there is no evidence submitted regarding the primary significance of SDCC’s trademarks in the mind of the relevant public and thus, as a matter of law, cannot establish that the marks are generic’.
• It was contended by the Plaintiff that ‘Comic Con’ is a brand, in the sense that, people associate the name specifically to the San Diego show. They provided the Court with a survey in support of the contention where 82 percent of participants understood Comic-Con to be a brand name, and not a common generic name.
• Even though the survey was questioned by the Defendants, however, the jury accepted the evidence. 

US FEDERAL COURT JUDGEMENT

• The jury found the mark of the Plaintiff to be valid and also found similarity between the two marks. It came to the conclusion that the Defendants were using the infringing mark without the permission of the Plaintiff, thereby causing confusion in the minds of public, and is therefore guilty of trademark infringement.
• The Federal Jury awarded damages of $20,000 to the Plaintiff for corrective advertising. Also, while awarding damages the Court pointed out that the infringement was unintentional.
• The Plaintiff was allowed to either pursue trademark licensing agreements with all the similar comic conventions in the USA, over 140 in number, or ask them to rebrand their conventions by renaming it.

ANALYSIS

The Doctrine of Genericide is important to be discussed, with the reason being that it is one of the major point of discussion in the case. Sometimes brands become a victim of their own popularity. Genericide is one such situation wherein because the usage of the trademark is to such a level that it becomes an ordinary word i.e. generic, thereby losing the trademark protection.  What exactly happens is that the mark that is once denoted for specific goods and services becomes a label for the whole group of similar goods and services. For example: ‘Aspirin’ which was once a trademark for a medicine treating headache has now lost its trademark protection because it was used so extensively  by different entities that it became a generic term for acetylsalicylic acid. A few ways to protect a trademark from becoming generic are[1]:

• If at all a generic term forms part of the trademark, then it should always be accompanied by a distinct prefix or a suffix.
• The trademark should always be used as an adjective and not as a noun or a verb. The trademark proprietor should always establish a proper guideline relating to the usage of the trademark.
• Expanding business to include more than one product in the trademark. For example: ‘Band-Aid’ was initially used as a trademark only for adhesive healing bands but now they have expanded to include a line of foot care products under the same brand.
• Educating the consumers and the employees using the trademark to ensure proper usage of the trademark is important. They should be educated regarding the fact that the trademark is used as an identifier of the goods and services and is not the goods and services itself. 
• There should always be consistency in the usage of the mark. It should not be changed every single time it is used.
• The trademark proprietor should always use the letters TM or ® when the mark is registered, usually on the upper right hand corner. 

In this case, the mark ‘Comic-Con’ has been made in a manner where a generic term ‘Comic’ is paired with a distinctive descriptive suffix ‘-Con’. While deciding on any trademark the Court always looks at the mark as a whole and not in parts. Thus, the Defendant’s contention of ‘the mark being generic’ is defeated. This judgement indirectly drew a line between widely accepted marks and widely used mark. The mark that becomes widely accepted would continue to enjoy trademark protection like in the present case. Whereas the mark that is widely used would ultimately become generic losing the protection.  The judgement is being looked upon as a savior for the trademarks that are on the verge of becoming generic.

The judgement is said to have huge repercussions for the event industry in the USA. The reason for this is that other similar comic conventions in the US will now have to work out a deal with San Diego Comic Con or risk rebranding their convention entirely. Rebranding could be an issue as huge an amount of time, talent and expenses are spent in branding and popularizing a convention.

In India, the application for the word ‘Comic Con’ has been filed and registered by Comic Con India Pvt. Ltd., a company incorporated in 2011. However, even though they have been granted registrations for the word, a substantial number of their applications have been objected. The said entity holds similar comic based conventions in metro cities in the country. The main edition is held annually in New Delhi and express editions are held annually in Mumbai and Bangalore. The Delhi Comic Con is round the corner. A bare perusal of the search report generated from the portal of the Indian Trademark Registry shows that neither San Diego Comic Con enjoys any trademark protection of the word Comic Con nor have they applied for it. It would be interesting to follow if in future, San Diego Comic Con decides to protect their mark in India on the basis of prior use or being well-known in the United States.

For the convenience of our readers, the following is a table listing the details of trademark applications which has ‘Comic-con’ as a substantial part of their logo in India:

---

[1] http://www.inta.org/Media/Documents/2012_TMUseMediaInternetPublishing.pdf

India: Digitization of Copyright Office for ease of Registration of Copyright in India

Source: www.copyright.gov.in

December 04, 2017                                                                                               New Delhi

In an attempt to cut down delays in examination of copyright applications, the Copyright Office through a public notice dated December 04, 2017, stated that it would be publishing the list of such applications received for registration of Copyright during the week i.e. Monday to Friday.

The public notice stated that every publication shall be treated as a notice to every person who claims or has any interest in the subject matter of Copyright or has dispute regarding the said application and the said application would be examined if no objection is received within 30 days.

As per Rule 70 (9) of the Copyright Rules, 2013, the person applying for registration of a copyright shall give notice of his application to every person who claims or has any interest in the subject matter of the copyright or disputes the rights of the applicant to it.

The public notice further stated that, if no work or documents are received after issuance of notice, then such application would be treated as abandoned, without further notice, with a liberty to apply afresh.

The Copyright Office would be publishing the list of such applications on weekly a basis, on its website every Monday.

This initiative regarding the publication of copyright applications is an incredible move towards digitization and transparency. This attempt of following the procedure of giving notice under the said rule would definitely ease the procedure related to the Registration of Copyright in India.

The public notice dated December 04, 2017 can be accessed here.

Indian: Patent Office launches the Official Mobile APP for Intellectual Property Rights

Source: www.ipindiaservices.gov.in

Mobile applications have become a part of our day to day lives. Everything nowadays is done with just one click. Keeping in mind the technological developments, Office of the Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks (hereinafter referred to as the ‘CGPDTM’) has launched the Official Mobile APP ‘Intellectual Property India’ for intellectual property rights. The App can be downloaded from their official website ipindia.gov.in or from Google Playstore.

The App will provide information related to Patent Office, Designs Wing of the Patent Office, Trade Marks Registry, Geographical Indications Registry, Copyright Office, Semiconductor Integrated Circuits Layout-Design Registry & Rajiv Gandhi National Institute of Intellectual Property Management. Even though utilities like updates on Application Status, relevant Acts and Rules, Searches, etc, that are on offer on the App can already be availed directly on the IP India website, the launch of the App certainly makes the process more user friendly for the stakeholders, and goes a long way to demonstrate the current Government’s objective of promoting the Digital India Programme.   

India: DRDO unit and Uttarakhand Government amalgamate for IPR protection

Source: www.drdo.gov.in

Pursuant to the Memorandum of Understanding executed between the Defense Institute of Bio-Energy Research (DIBER), a unit of the DRDO and Uttarakhand Research Circle (URC), a division of the state forest department, in June 2017, followed by several dialogues and extensive research, both the aforesaid organizations have collaborated and agreed upon to apply for IPR protection for Kasani considered to be a rich source of carbohydrate and proteins, besides having anti-diabetic and anti-oxidant properties.

Kasani (Cichorium Intybus) commonly called Kasni, and more popularly known as “syrup of wild cherries” (Chicory) in European Countries is a widely grown herb throughout India. It possesses blood purifying properties and is also a liver stimulant and is helpful in treatment of diabetes, asthma, blood pressure, liver and kidney diseases.

The wonder herb ‘Kasani’ currently is widely used and various drug firms prepare it for their products. According to recent reports, URC has sold more than a lakh Kasani plants to buyers from different sectors in different parts of the country.

In a statement to the Times of India, Sajiv Chaturvedi, head of Uttarakhand Research Circle said, that "After we get patents of these species, nobody will be able to exploit products made from these. The benefits will also be shared with local communities."

The Kasani project is being funded under collaborative research provision of the Compensatory Afforestation Fund Management and Planning Authority, wherein the forest department is facilitating manpower, field visits and traditional knowledge whereas DIBER is contributing by conducting scientific research mon medicinal plants.

Currently, DIBER is also conducting research on Vajradanti (potentilla fulgens) used to treat teeth and gum related problems.

Source-https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/dehradun/ukhand-to-apply-for-patent-of-wonder-herb-after-drdo-unit-validates-medicinal-properties/articleshow/62233998.cms

India: Justice (Retd.) Manmohan Singh appointed as the Chairman of Intellectual Property Appellate Board

Source: www.spicyip.com

Justice (Retd.) Manmohan Singh, formerly, Judge, Delhi High Court has now been appointed to the post of Chairman, Intellectual Property Appellate Board (hereinafter referred to as the ‘IPAB’).

Born on September 22, 1954, Justice Manmohan Singh enrolled as an advocate with Bar Council of Delhi on August 12, 1980. In the beginning of his career, he actively practiced on the original side of the Delhi High Court for about nine years.  From 1990 onwards, Justice Manmohan Singh started practicing independently and dealt with cases relating to all branches of law in the Delhi High Court as well as Supreme Court. Due to his expertise in the field of IPR and rich experience of dealing with cases arising under Trade Marks Act and Copyright Act, Justice Manmohan Singh, even before his elevation, had participated in various National and International seminars and presented a number of papers on different subjects.  Hard work, sound knowledge of law and legal acumen possessed by Justice Manmohan Singh enabled him to develop a large practice. He was appointed as an Additional Judge of the Delhi High Court on April 11, 2008 and as a permanent Judge on July 6, 2011.

It is clear from the judgments of Justice Manmohan Singh that he is not only cognizant of the social realities but also is extremely gifted in the application of law, both in letter and in spirit. Having religiously maintained and scrupulously sustained the dignity, sincerity and nobility of the legal profession while he was in the Bar, Justice Manmohan Singh continued the same on the Bench with amazing work ethic, dedication and commitment to the cause of justice.

India: National Science Centre: Innovation Festival 2018

Realizing the importance of Innovation and the impact of experimentation and scientific method in shaping logical thinking among our community, the National Science Centre is organizing Innovation Festival during 20^th to 21^st January, 2018. It aims to foster a passion and aptitude for science and technology and to provide a unique platform to Innovative and creative Innovators.

The Innovation Festival would have-

A.    Innovation Fair

B.     Make it at Science Centre

a.      Art

b.      Sculpture

c.      Build from Scrap

C.     Creative Robo Design

D.    Innovative Challenges

E.     Family Science Quiz

F.      Popular Science Lecture

G.    Idea Contest

Innovation Festival is open ended, encouraging and generous in Spirit. It is about participation, not competition. The Festival is an all age showcase and celebration of Invention, creativity and resourcefulness. This is a place to meet and interact with likeminded innovators from different walks of life. It will support discovery and exploration while introducing new tools for advance design. Other objectives are fostering creativity in people and to make them agent of change in their personal life and their community.

 General Schedule of Events are as follows:

Event		Date	Time
a.	Inauguration followed by Popular Lecture by eminent person	20th January, 2018	11.00    AM   to 12.00 Noon
b.	Innovation Fair	20th  to 21st January, 2018	10.00 AM to 4.00 PM
c.	Creative Robo Design	21st January, 2018	10.00 AM to 3.00 PM
d.	Make it at Science centre a)   Art b)    Sculpture c)   Build from Scrap	20th  to 21st January, 2018	10.00 AM to 4.00 PM
e.	On    the    spot    Design    Contest/ Innovative Challenges (Open for families)	21st January, 2018	10.30 AM to 12.30 PM
f.	Family Science Quiz	21st  January, 2018	2.00 PM to 4.00 PM
g.	Idea Contest	Idea can be dropped in Box kept at Fair 20th  to 21st  January, 2018 ( Afternoon)
h.	Valediction	21st  January, 2018	4.00 PM onwards

Venue & Duration of the Fair: Period: From January 20th, 2018, to January 21st, 2018 Timing: 10.00a.m. To 4.00 p.m. Venue: fairground area of National Science Centre. Near Gate No. 1, Bhairon Road, Pragati Maidan, New Delhi, Delhi 110001

“IP4kids, a CSR initiative of S. S. Rana & Co., will also be participating in the said event, in an effort to promote IP awareness amongst kids & young innovators”